Mayflower Share Discussion Threads

[soysoy] 04/2/2005 21:41

""""I guess though that it's good that you agree there's no point fining a company that is insolvent, perhaps there is hope for you yet?"""""
WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT FINING THE COMPANY AND NEITHER WHERE
WHERE LOOKING AT THE DIRECTORS

[shirishg] 04/2/2005 06:01

Post removed by ADVFN

[anomalous] 04/2/2005 02:28

Pace Micro Technology fined £450,000 for Listing Rule breaches
FSA/PN/010/2005
27 January 2005

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Pace Micro Technology plc (Pace) £450,000 for breaches of the Listing Rules in January and February 2002.

The FSA has found that Pace breached the Listing Rules because it failed to ensure its Interim Results Announcement on 8 January 2002 included all relevant information, when it did not reveal that its trade credit insurance, in respect of one of its largest customers, had been withdrawn. It also failed to update the market without delay of a change in its expectation as to its future revenue performance which had occurred on 4 February 2002. When Pace did alert the market as to its financial position on 5 March 2002, its share price fell 67% by close of trading.

Gay Huey Evans, Director of Markets at the FSA, said:

"The effect of Pace's omission from its Interim Announcement on 8 January 2002 was further compounded by the delay in announcing its changed expectation as to its financial performance until 5 March 2002. These were clear breaches of the Listing Rules.
"The FSA requires listed companies to ensure the financial information they release to the market is accurate and provided without delay to enable investors to make informed investment decisions. This is a fundamental protection for shareholders and is vital for the smooth operation of efficient, orderly and competitive markets.

"This is the third time in the last 12 months that the FSA has taken action against a company for failing to observe the Listing Rules. It demonstrates how seriously we view a failure by companies to meet expected standards and our determination to take action for such failures."

Background

Pace is involved in the manufacture, development and distribution of digital television set top boxes. Pace's primary customer base, during this period, was composed of a small number of large European and US companies. One of its largest customers in late 2001 was NTL Group Limited (NTL), a subsidiary of the US-based NTL Inc which was suffering well publicised financial difficulties.

NTL, during the first half of Pace's financial year 2001/2002, accounted for 42% of Pace's turnover by volume and 48% by revenue. Pace had made known to the market, in previous Annual Reports, that it maintained a policy of trade credit insurance in respect of its larger customers.

Interim Results Announcement of 8 January 2002

In October 2001, NTL placed orders for 450,000 set top boxes, to be delivered in January, February and March 2002, on which Pace's forecasted revenues for the financial year ending 1 June 2002 were dependent. In early December 2001, the size of the order was reduced to 300,000 boxes and the parties continued to discuss payment and delivery terms.

On 19 December 2001, Pace's trade credit insurer, NCM, informed Pace that it was withdrawing insurance cover in respect of all of Pace's future shipments to NTL including the October 2001 order. This withdrawal meant that future payments owed by NTL were no longer guaranteed. The matter was not drawn to the attention of the company's corporate brokers and the withdrawal of insurance cover was not mentioned in the Interim Results statement published on 8 January 2002. Pace's Interim Results Announcement on 8 January 2002 showed that the expected turnover for the year ending 1 June 2002 would be broadly similar to the previous year's turnover of £524 million. Key to the realisation of the forecast figure was the receipt of the revenue from NTL's purchase of the 300,000 boxes.

Trading Statement of 5 March 2002

On 4 February 2002, Pace changed its expectation of its revenue for its financial year ending 1 June 2002, to £455 million, which was 12.5% less than the market consensus of £520 million. This information was not announced to the market. On 4 March 2002 Pace commenced a review of its performance which indicated that there had been a marked deterioration in its forecasted revenue for the financial year ending 1 June 2002 from £455 million on 4 February to £350 million. This further change in expectation represented a decrease of approximately 30% from the forecast of £524 million implied by the Interim Results of 8 January 2002.

Pace issued a Trading Statement on 5 March 2002 setting out its change in expectation. Following the announcement, Pace's share price fell nearly 67% from £3 to £1 at the close of trading.

Notes for editors
The full text of the Final Notice, dated 26 January 2005, is available on the FSA website. This includes the background to the case, the relevant statutory provisions and the regulatory requirements contravened and the factors taken into account by the RDC when setting the level of the fine.

Financial penalties are not treated as income by the FSA. They are applied for the benefit of authorised persons (or the issuers of securities admitted to the official list) as appropriate, and so given back to the industry in subsequent years.

Pace Microtechnology is a publicly listed company whose shares are traded on the LSE.

Paragraph 9.2 of the version of the Listing Rules, which applied at the time, states that:
"A company must notify the Company Announcements Office without delay of all relevant information which is not public knowledge concerning a change:

(a) in the company's financial condition;
(b) in the performance of its business; or
(c) in the company's expectation as to its performance;

which, if made public, would be likely to lead to substantial movement in the price of its listed securities."

Paragraph 9.3A of the version of the Listing Rules, which applied at the time, stated that:
"A company must take all reasonable care to ensure that any statement or forecast or any other information it notifies to the Company Announcements Office or makes available through the UK Listing Authority is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such statement, forecast or other information."

Under section 91(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 if the FSA considers that an issuer of listed securities has contravened the Listing Rules, it may impose a penalty of such amount as it considers appropriate.

FSA took on new powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on 1 December 2001. The disciplinary sanctions available to the FSA for breaches of the Listing Rules that take place on or after 1 December 2001 include a fine or a public statement.

The FSA has taken action for Listing Rules breaches in the following cases since 1 December 2001 - Marconi, SFI, Sportsworld, Universal Salvage and Shell.

The FSA wrote to listed retail companies, on 15 December 2004, reminding them of their duties under the Listing Rules to keep the market informed without delay of any developments in their businesses.

The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.

The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve our business capability and effectiveness.

[anomalous] 04/2/2005 01:07

You missed the point JakNife. The FSA fined Pace Micro, not the directors. It was the directors that were responsible for the failure to report the likely drop in profits due to NTL's Chapter 11. So the FSA punished the shareholders (aka the company) for something the shareholders did not do.

In the Mayflower case a similar thing happened. The directors should have disclosed and did not. The FSA failed to act before the directors caused the company to crash.

The FSA have still not charged the directors with the crime, even though they decided to overpay their own pension fund, whilst underpaying the employees. The directors have considerable financial wealth. More than enough for part compensation to the shareholders.

The FSA are culpable, because they have so far failed to act - despite knowing about the entire situation for over a year and well before the crash of Mayflower. They have breached their responsibilities as regulators.

[soysoy] 03/2/2005 20:06

I thought you all might want to know that there is article in Shares Magazine. The reason is that the FSA have levied a fine of £450,000 on Pace Micro for the director's failure to notify the market that they failed to disclose the likely down turn in business due to NTL's Chapter 11 problems.

The parallel with Mayflower could be that IF directors new that THEY was a £17 million hole in the accounts and this was affecting the renegotiation of the loans with the banks.
I am expecting a break though very soon so everything comes out of the bag
BUT I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE AND HOPEFULLY THIS LAST TIME I SAY IT

[soysoy] 03/2/2005 20:02

not sure but it will not do any harm
if you want to register i can send yoy news leter

YOU CAN REGISTER ON MY WEBSITE
new action group

[geminian] 03/2/2005 18:32

Haven't been to this thread before due to time limits and arrived here through the HNL thread.

Notice the posts mainly refer to Mayflower. Will any outcome if postive, be of any benefit of HNL holders?

I only hold 300 so not that many but still a loss, that I could have done without.

[soysoy] 28/1/2005 13:03

"I was employed as a senior finance manager of Transbus for 3 years and all I can say is that nobody to my knowledge benefited from the corporate collapse..it was a combination of bad luck and poor business decisions!!""""
HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS
SOME OF THE DIRECTORS ARE STILL WORKING WHERE MANY LOST EVERYTHING
WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY MANY EX-EMPLOYERS OF MAYFLOWER ALL WANTING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE

[soysoy] 28/1/2005 08:48

These shares are traded exclusively in the US markets.
this is scam these are not listed on any market and into companys that don`t exist

[deniser2] 28/1/2005 05:07

The worst risk is not taking one at all. Go after your dreams and goals but don't go it alone. Rely on this great find to help guide you through murky waters. This newsletter has unparalleled insight and an amazing track record. It helps you pick great shares that you may not have thought about before. It accomplishes this by emailing you when something worthwhile is on the move and worth mentioning. You will not receive any junk mail. Before you venture into those murky waters alone remember that you have something great backing you up. These shares are traded exclusively in the US markets.

[soysoy] 24/1/2005 17:35

I WILL SEND YOU EMAIL

[scribbler101] 24/1/2005 17:31

are you sure?

[soysoy] 23/1/2005 09:52

Plant Sold
December 30, 2004

Union Partners Says It Will Continue to Operate South Charleston Business

Union Partners has purchased Mayflower Vehicle Systems' plant in South Charleston, and Union Partners officials say the company is planning a long-term commitment.

The vehicle stamping plant's sale was finalized late Tuesday, but financial terms were not disclosed.

Union Partners emerged as a potential buyer for the plant after Michigan-based Mayflower announced plans in August to lay off about 375 workers at the South Charleston plant because a contract with Daimler-Chrysler AG's Mercedes-Benz was expiring.

Paul G. Lowe, a managing director of Ohio-based Union Partners, said the company plans no significant reductions beyond those previously announced cuts at the plant. Mayflower workers had previously questioned Union Partners' intentions, writing a letter earlier this month that asked whether the company plans to buy the plant and then "pay off the state, default and walk off with millions."

Union Partners says it will continue to do business at the South Charleston site.

The Associated Press

[soysoy] 20/1/2005 20:29

farsight no problem
action group is now running on four cyclinders
and i can see light end of the tunnel

[farsight] 20/1/2005 18:03

Don't let him distract you soysoy.

[soysoy] 20/1/2005 17:57

VERY OLD POST BUT THOUGHT OF INTEREST

Upside - 29 Mar'04 - 13:32 - 4260 of 4493


Here's some news for shareholders.... (from M o n e y A M)...

"Three directors could divi up £2.2m between them as board exodus announced

Three senior directors of Mayflower Corporation PLC could share up to 2.2 mln stg in compensation following their shock departure from the engineering and bus and coach manufacturer.

The group, which is currently is discussions with its bankers about a refinancing package, also announced that it had unearthed 'accounting irregularities' in its TransBus division, although a spokeswoman for the company stressed that the directors' departures were not as a result of this discovery.

Chief executive John Simpson, who estbalised Mayflower in 1989 when he injected some of his own business assets into the company, finance director David Donnelly and joint managing director John Fleming will all be leaving the group in April. Chairman Rupert Hambro has also indicated that he will leave once a successor is found.

According to the last set of published acccounts -- for the year to Dec 2002 -- the three executives received combined remuneration of 1.1 mln stg, with John Simpson the highest paid director with a basic salary of 487,000 stg.

Under the terms of their service contracts, they can each be eligible for compensation of up to two years salary if their contracts are terminated by the company. This could mean total compenation of about 2.2 mln stg, with Simpson in line for a pay-off of about 974,000 stg.

The group was not immediately available for comment, but the company spokeswoman said the final decision over the level of compensation had yet to be agreed.

Their departures are understood to have precipitated by disgruntled shareholders and institutions who have had a rocky ride with the company over the past few years.

In February, the company issued its second profit warning in two months, once again citing problems at its TransBus unit. Profits for the year to Dec 2003 are now expected to be around 6 mln stg. Last year it posted a profit of 25.3 mln stg. The shares have fallen from a 'high' of 36 pence over the past twelve months and today they opened 2-3/4 pence lower at 6-1/2 -- a new all-time low.

The directors will be replaced by Alan Jamieson, who was appointed as chief

restructuring officer in February, and Bruce Wright. They will be appointed group chief executive and finance director respectively.

Jamieson is a veteran restructuring specialist and a former employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers, while Wright has held management positions with Chubb PLC, Kwik-Fit Holdings, First Choice Holidays PLC and B&Q.

'It was felt that a new management team could push through the necessary changes and speed up the refinancing negotiations,' the spokeswoman told AFX News this morning.

The group has been trying to negotiate a refinancing for some time and recently warned that it would have to make a 'considerable write-down' in its MVS German business.

Today the group said the accounting irregularities at TransBus, relating to delays in passing on payments from customers to one of the group's finance providers, would mean an increase in net debt of about 20 mln stg -- pushing the year-end figure up to close on 200 mln stg. This may put the group close to breaching its banking covenants.


Mayflower shares dived 37.8% to 6.75p. "